Yeah, it's almost as if all aspects of the spectacle of electoral politics, including the media apparatus occurs and is completely disconnected from the mechanisms of capital accumulation. Both leftwing and right-wing media are capital, but so is Trump, which was proven by the policy decisions he made, none of which were friendly to the other team, which is labor. The media weren't even really against him other than rhetorically, they were giving him so much free air time and he was fantastic for ratings!
Capital doesn't only rely on stability. It mostly relies on periods of stability with periods of disruption. The only part that changes is what group of capitalists maintains their reins during those periods of disruption. (Which is what Milton Friedman says drives innovation, but I completely disagree with that, unless you just mean innovations of grift). Labor also requires stability in order to organize the large groups of people necessary to create and enforce it's theoretical hegemony, but it also relies on disruption to cause material needs stop being met to create solidarity. The creation of the Soviets was directly tied to centuries of peasants staying in their singular communities decimated by war, while strong unions were made by a generation of proletarian workers, again decimated by war, being in the same industries as their parents. Things are going to likely need to get far worse before they get better.
The rate of profit hit rock bottom in the 70's and has been bouncing around, with a few exceptions (tech bubbles and expropriation) since then. The senile U.S. president is simply an indication that the actual politics of capital does not require the active participation of the electoral wing of the executive branch.
deleted by creator
Yeah, it's almost as if all aspects of the spectacle of electoral politics, including the media apparatus occurs and is completely disconnected from the mechanisms of capital accumulation. Both leftwing and right-wing media are capital, but so is Trump, which was proven by the policy decisions he made, none of which were friendly to the other team, which is labor. The media weren't even really against him other than rhetorically, they were giving him so much free air time and he was fantastic for ratings!
Capital doesn't only rely on stability. It mostly relies on periods of stability with periods of disruption. The only part that changes is what group of capitalists maintains their reins during those periods of disruption. (Which is what Milton Friedman says drives innovation, but I completely disagree with that, unless you just mean innovations of grift). Labor also requires stability in order to organize the large groups of people necessary to create and enforce it's theoretical hegemony, but it also relies on disruption to cause material needs stop being met to create solidarity. The creation of the Soviets was directly tied to centuries of peasants staying in their singular communities decimated by war, while strong unions were made by a generation of proletarian workers, again decimated by war, being in the same industries as their parents. Things are going to likely need to get far worse before they get better.
The rate of profit hit rock bottom in the 70's and has been bouncing around, with a few exceptions (tech bubbles and expropriation) since then. The senile U.S. president is simply an indication that the actual politics of capital does not require the active participation of the electoral wing of the executive branch.